3jl7t 

'  r 


UWI1 


iLUNOIS- 


A.  Report  on 
Local  Legislation 

in  1903 


Of  Interest  to  Rent 
County  ®L  the  City 
of  Grand  Rapids, 
Michigan  ^  jS' 


By  DELOS  F.  WILCOX,  Secretary  of  the 
Civic  Clnb  of  Grand  Rapids,  Mich. 


*.:•  ,>  * 


,  .  LIBRARY  5£.'0Tf* 

OF  THE  o  ~*i  j  r 

•  UliIVtf  ILLINOIS.  s  -  ',* 

A  REPORT 

ON  THE 

local  Legislation  lor  Grand  Capids  and  Kent  County 

IN  1Q03. 


335  Michigan  Trust  Bldg.,  Grand  Rapids, 

July  2,  1903. 

To  the  Executive  Committee  of  the  Civic  Club: 

Gentlemen: — I  beg  leave  to  report  on  the  local  legisla¬ 
tion  for  Grand  Rapids  and  Kent  County  enacted  during  the 
recent  session  of  the  Legislature,  as  follows: 

I.  Bills  Passed  for  Kent  County. 

1.  Primary  Election  Bill. 

2.  Coroners’  Salary  Bill. 

3.  Board  of  Auditors’  Constitutional  Amendment  and  Bill. 

4.  Jury  Commission  Bill. 

5.  North  Park  Bridge  Bill. 

6.  Bill  raising  the  Salary  of  the  Register  of  Probate. 

II.  Bills  Passed  for  the  City  of  Grand  Rapids. 

1.  Library  Commission  Bill. 

2.  Sinking  Fund  Commission  Bill. 

3.  Grand  River  Pollution  Bill 

4.  West  Side  Big  Ditch  Bonding  Bill. 

5.  Bill  authorizing  the  city  to  condemn  land  for  boulevard 

purposes  along  Grand  River  in  Wyoming  Township. 

6.  Bill  to  fix  salary  limits  and  to  provide  for  the  collection 

of  all  City  and  Special  Taxes  by  the  City  Treasurer, 

7.  Bill  supplementing  the  preceding  one. 


1 


8.  Bill  to  require  a  certificate  showing  all  city  taxes  paid 

before  a  deed  is  recorded  by  the  County  Register  of 
Deeds. 

9.  Bill  extending  the  term  of  Highway  Commissioners 

from  one  to  two  years. 

10.  Bill  to  authorize  the  construction  of  storm  water  sewers 
as  a  part  of  street  improvements. 

]  1.  Bill  to  make  special  assessments  for  local  improvements 
a  general  charge  in  the  case  of  railroads  rather  than  a 
lien  upon  their  real  estate. 

12.  Bill  transferring  from  the  Board  of  Public  Works  to 
the  Board  of  Police  and  Fire  Commissioners  the  con¬ 
struction  and  repair  of  engine  houses. 

15.  Bill  to  relieve  the  City  Treasurer  from  the  necessity  of 
making  a  copy  of  the  rolls  of  unpaid  taxes  to  be  'filed 
with  the  City  Clerk  not  later  than  January  15. 

14.  Bill  to  cure  the  irregularity  in  the  action  of  the  Com¬ 

mon  Council  and  the  people  in  authorizing  the  issue 
of  $50,000  bridge  bonds  for  twenty-five  instead  of 
twenty  years. 

15.  Bill  to  amend  the  act  governing  the  justices’  courts, 

rendered  necessary  by  a  mistake  in  the  title  of  a  sim¬ 
ilar  bill  passed  in  1901. 

III.  General  Bills  Passed  Affecting  the  City  or  County. 

1.  Probate  Judges’  Salary  Bill. 

2.  Bill  submitting  to  the  people  the  question  of  a  General 

Revision  of  the  Constitution. 

3.  Bill  providing  for  the  Inspection  of  Meat  in  Cities. 

IV.  Important  Measures  of  Local  Interest  that  Failed 

to  Pass. 

1.  Sheriff’s  Salary  Bill. 

2.  Charter  Commission  Bill. 

3.  Municipal  Civil  Service  Bill. 

4.  Bill  requiring  all  Public  Service  Corporations  to  make 

detailed  public  reports. 

5.  Home  Rule  Constitutional  Amendments. 


2 


COUNTY  LEGISLATION, 


Primary  Elections. 

The  New  Primary  Election  Law  for  Kent  County  applies 
to  nominations  by  all  political  parties  for  county,  city,  judicial 
and  legislative  offices,  but  does  not  apply  to  nominations  for 
township,  villag*e  and  school  offices,  or  for  the  library  com¬ 
mission.  The  main  features  of  the  law  are  the  following: 

1.  All  parties  hold  primaries  at  the  same  times  and  places, 

and  under  the  same  primary  election  officers. 

2.  Candidates  are  nominated  by  plurality  vote  of  the  mem¬ 

bers  of  the  party  who  take  part  in  the  primary. 

3.  Every  registered  elector  is  entitled  to  vote  at  the  pri¬ 

mary,  but  in  order  to  do  so  he  must  state  the  ticket 
which  he  desires  to  vote;,  he  is  then  given  a  ballot 
containing  the  names  of  the  candidates  belonging  to 
that  party  only.  Any  elector  present  may  challenge 
his  vote  on  the  ground  that  “he  is  generally  known  to 
belong  to  a  political  party  opposed  to  the  party  whose 
ticket  he  has  asked  for.”  If  challenged,  he  must 
make  oath  that  he  is  in  sympathy  with  the  principles 
of  the  party  and  expects  to  vote  the  ticket  of  that 
party  at  the  next  ensuing  election. 

4.  Every  candidate  wishing  to  have  his  name  printed  on 

the  primary  ballot  must  file  a  sworn  statement  with 
the  city  or  county  clerk  to  the  effect  that  he  is  a 
member  of  a  party  and  is  a  candidate  for  his  party 
nomination  for  the  particular  office  which  he  seeks, 
and  must  pay  a  fee  of  $15.00,  unless  he  is  a  candi¬ 
date  f<pr  the  legislature,  for  supervisor  at  large,  for 
alderman  or  for  constable,  in  which  case  the  fee  is 
$5.00. 

5.  Independent  nominations  may  be  made  by  a  mass  con¬ 

vention  of  at  least  two  hundred  electors  of  the  city, 
and  in  this  case  no  fees  are  required.  Vacancies  on 
the  party  ticket  caused  by  death,  removal,  resignation 
or  disqualification  are  filled  by  the  party  committee. 

6.  Party  candidates  select  party  campaign  committees  for 

a  term  of  two  years. 

/.  Any  person  who  electioneers  within  two  hundred  feet 
of  a  polling  place;  who  drinks  or  offers  to  another  any 

p'351.7  (o 


3 


intoxicating  liquors  within  the  polling  place;  or  who 
solicits  or  gives  money  or  promise  of  place  or  posi¬ 
tion  or  any  other  valuable  consideration  in  return  for 
a  vote  or  support  at  the  primary,  commits  a  misde¬ 
meanor  and  renders  himself  liable  to  a  fine  of  $1,000 
and  imprisonment  for  one  year. 

This  act  was  submitted  to  the  voters  of  Kent  County  at 
the  April  election  and  approved  by  73  per  cent  of  those  vot¬ 
ing,  or  a  majority  of  over  7,000. 

The  main  thing  in  favor  of  the  new  law  is  that  it  gives 
the  people  direct  control  over  nominations  and  reduces  the 
power  of  political  machines  to  defy  public  sentiment. 

The  weak  points  of  the  law  appear  to  be  the  following: 

1.  It  emphasizes  the  idea  that  the  man  seeks  the  office 

rather  than  the  office  the  man. 

2.  It  discourages  poor  men  from  becoming  candidates  on 

account  of  the  fees  required,  and  discriminates  against 
small  political  parties  for  the  same  reason. 

These  difficulties  could  easily  be  obviated  by  an  amend¬ 
ment  to  the  law  requiring  a  petition  signed  by  twenty-five 
or  fifty  electors  in  place  of  the  candidate’s  personal  declara¬ 
tion  and  fee. 

The  Coroners’  Office. 

The  Coroners’  Salary  Bill  was  passed  in  March,  but  prac¬ 
tically  took  effect  from  the  beginning  of  the  year.  Its  main 
features  are  the  following: 

1.  The  coroners  must  be  practicing  physicians. 

2.  Each  coroner  receives  an  annual  salary  of  $1,500.00. 

3.  Each  coroner  is  required  to  assist  the  other  when  expert 

testimony  is  desired. 

4.  The  coroners  must  file  with  the  county  clerk  a  monthly 

report  of  inquests  and  the  expenses  of  conducting 
them. 

During  the  first  six  months  of  the  operation  of  the  cor¬ 
oners’  salary  law  the  results  have  more  than  justified  the 
change  from  the  fee  to  the  salary  system.  While  many  citi¬ 
zens  are  of  the  opinion  that  one  coroner  required  to  devote 
his  entire  time  to  the  office  would  be  in  a  position  to  do  bet¬ 
ter  service  to  the  county  than  two  who  are  permitted  to 
keep  up  their  private  practice,  there  has  been  no  evidence 
during  the  present  year  that  the  coroners  have  lost  interest 
in  the  public  service  on  account  of  the  salary  system.  The 


4 


comparative  expense  to  the  county  during  the  first  six  months 
of  1902  and  the  same  period  of  1903  will  show  the  saving  that 
is  being  effected. 


Coroners’  Witness  and  Jury  Fees. 


Month. 

1902. 

1903. 

Decrease. 

January  . 

•  •  •  •$  717  95 

$130  63 

$  587  32 

February  .... 

....  694  02 

17  83 

676 19 

March . 

...  652 .42 

23  09 

629  33 

April  . 

. . . .  814  97 

30  52 

784  45 

May  . 

•••  25324 

51  98 

201 26 

June  . 

...  440  93 

20  37 

420  56 

Totals  .  . 

••  •  -$3,573  53 

$274  42 

$3,299 11 

The  coroners’  salaries  for  one  year  under  the  new  law 
amount  to  $3,000.00.  Last  year  they  received  directly  from 
the  county  $2,218.37  after  the  Board  of  Supervisors  had  cut 
their  claims  $1,357.67.  For  1901  they  received  $3,510.14 
after  their  bills  had  been  cut  $991.10.  Taking  the  average 
for  the  year  1901  and  1902  as  a  basis,  the  coroners’  fees 
claimed  during  the  first  six  months  of  the  present  year  would 
have  amounted  to  $2,019.32,  and  the  fees  allowed  $1,432.13. 
Under  the  salary  system  the  two  coroners  received  $1,500.00 
for  six  months,  which  is  at  the  rate  of  $135.74  per  year  more 
than  the  coroners  received  directly  from  the  county  on  the 
average  of  the  two  years  1901  and  1902.  For  this  increased 
compensation  the  coroners  perform  all  the  autopsies  and  ex¬ 
pert  witness  work.  The  saving  to  the  county  in  jury  and 
witness  fees  during  the  first  six  months  under  the  salary  sys¬ 
tem  as  compared  with  the  same  period  last  year  has  been  at 
the  rate  of  $6,598.27  per  year. 

County  Auditing. 

The  establishment  of  a  board  of  county  auditors  is  the 
most  radical  change  made  by  the  Legislature  in  the  conduct 
of  local  affairs.  The  need  of  a  better  system  of  auditing* 
claims  against  the  county  has  long  been  obvious  to  all  who 
paid  any  attention  to  the  work  of  the  board  of  supervisors. 
The  Civic  Club  favored  a  bill  authorizing  the  supervisors  to 
pay  an  auditing  committee  to  examine  bills  every  month 
and  prepare  reports  for  the  full  board  to  pass  upon  at  its 
meetings.  This  measure  would  not  have  decreased  the  power 
or  responsibility  of  the  supervisors  in  any  way,  but  would 
have  provided  -for  an  examination  of  bills  soon  after  the  ser- 


5 


vices  were  rendered  and  would  have  taken  away  the  prin¬ 
cipal  reasons  for  the  .supervisors’  remaining  in  session  at  the 
expense  of  the  county  far  beyond  the  limit  fixed  by  the  stat¬ 
utes.  The  board  of  supervisors  was  asked  to  indorse  this 
measure,  but  refused  by  a  vote  of  26  to  15.  The  matter  was 
then  taken  to  the  Legislature.  A  bill  was  introduced  at  our 
request  by  Mr.  Van  Zoeren  paving  the  supervisors  a  salary 
of  $100.00  a  year  and  authorizing  them  to  pay  an  auditing 
committee  for  not  to  exceed  five  days’  work  each  month.  A 
somewhat  similar  bill  for  Ionia  County  passed  the  Legislature 
early  in  the  session,  but  was  vetoed  by  Governor  Bliss  on  the 
ground  that  it  was  a  local  amendment  to  general  legislation. 
The  Governor  threatened  to  veto  the  VanZoeren  bill  for  Kent 
County  if  it  were  passed.  Under  the  circumstances  there  was 
little  prospect  of  any  change  in  our  auditing  system  except 
by  a  constitutional  amendment.  Washtenaw,  Saginaw  and 
Jackson  Counties  were  asking  for  such  an  amendment,  and 
when  the  measure  reached  the  senate  Mr.  Burns  had  Kent 
County  included.  The  amendment  was  then  put  through 
without  much  consideration  and  voted  on  by  the  people  of 
the  whole  state  at  the  April  election  without  any  adequate 
public  discussion.  The  proposition  carried  in  the  state  at 
large  and  also  in  Kent  County.  The  vote  in  the  county  was 
7,486  for  and  5,666  against.  Outside  of  the  city  there  was 
a  majority  of  about  700  against  the  measure.  The  amend¬ 
ment  was  mandatory,  and  transferred  important  powers  from 
the  Board  of  Supervisors  to  the  Board  of  Auditors  which 
was  to  be  established.  The  words  of  the  Constitution,  Article 
X,  Section  10,  as  amended,  are  as  follows: 

“The  Board  of  Supervisors,  or  in  the  Counties  of  Saginaw, 
Jackson,  Washtenaw,  Kent  and  Wayne,  the  Board  of  County 
Audtiors,  shall  have  the  exclusive  power  to  fix  the  compensa¬ 
tion  for  all  services  rendered  for,  and  to  adjust  all  claims 
against,  their  respective  counties,  and  the  sum  so  fixed  and 
defined  shall  be  subject  to  no  appeal.’’ 

When  the  State  Board  of  Canvassers  met  in  May  and 
declared  this  amendment  carried,  it  became  incumbent  upon 
the  Legislature  to  establish  the  new  Board  of  Auditors  and 
define  its  powers  within  the  general  limits  set  by  the  Consti¬ 
tution.  Representative  Anderson  secured  a  title  by  which 
such  a  bill  could  be  considered,  and  nresented  to  someone  in 
the  Attorney  General’s  office  at  Lansing  a  general  outline  of 
the  kind  of  bill  he  desired,  and  secured  the  draft  of  a  measure 
along  these  lines.  In  the  meantime  your  Secretary,  in  con¬ 
junction  with  competent  attorneys,  was  drafting  a  bill  for 


6 


the  same  general  purpose.  This  bill  was  presented  to  Mr. 
Anderson,  but  he  seems  not  to  have  given  it  any  considera¬ 
tion,  and  was  only  induced  to  accept  some  hasty  amendments 
of  his  oiwn  bill  on  account  of  the  almost  universal  opposition 
to  a  number  of  its  provisions.  The  bill  was  passed  by  the 
House,  further  amended  in  the  Senate,  and  finally  signed  by 
the  Governor.  The  main  provisions  of  the  new  law  are  the 
following: 

1.  The  Board  of  Auditors  consists  of  three  men  appointed 

by  the  Governor  in  the  first  instance,  and  elected  by 
the  people  thereafter.  Three  members  will  be  chosen 
at  the  fall  election  next  year,  and  thereafter  one  mem¬ 
ber  will  be  elected  every  two  years  for  a  six  years' 
term. 

2.  The  Board  meets  for  the  transaction  of  business  on 

the  last  Wednesday  of  each  month  and  may  remain  in 
session  for  three  days,  the  County  Clerk  or  his  deputy 
.acting  as  clerk  of  the  Board.  The 'December  session 
of  the  Board  may  be  prolonged  to  a  full  week  if 
necessary. 

3.  No  one  holding  any  other  office  under  the  county,  city 

or  any  township  is  eligible  to  election  or  appointment 
as  auditor,  and  no  auditor  is  permitted  to.  be  inter¬ 
ested  in,  any  contract  with  the  county,  or  to  sell  sup¬ 
plies  to  the  county. 

4.  The  County  Treasurer  is  forbidden  to  pay  out  any 

moneys  except  on  the  warrant  of  the  chairman  and 
clerk  of  tlie  Board,  and  no  such  warrant  can  be  issued, 
except  for  witness  and  jury  fees,  unless  the  claim  to 
be  paid  has  been  passed  upon  by  the  Board  as  a  whole. 

5.  The  special  powers  of  the  auditors  include  the  following: 

af  The  purchase  of  supplies  for  the  county  offices. 

b.  The  care  of  the  court  hou^e. 

c.  The  examination  of  the  county  treasurer’s  books. 

d.  The  fixing  of  the  number  and  salaries  of  clerks  and 

employes  in  the  county  offices-,  the  present  num¬ 
ber  not  to  be  increased  or  their  salaries  raised. 

e.  The  requirement  of  reports  from  county  officers. 

f.  The  approval  of  the  bonds  of  county  officers. 

g.  The  summoning  of  witnesses  and  the  taking  of 

testimony  in  regard  to  pending  claims. 

Such  are  the  main  provisions  of  the  new  act  which  has 
resulted  in  tightening  the  money  market  at  the  Court  House 
and  raising  the  tempejrature  of  the  supervisors  and  cpunty 
officials  several  degrees  above  normal.  The  auditors  ap- 


7 


pointed  by  Governor  Bliss  to  hold  office  till  January  i,  1905, 
are  ex-Senator  Robert  B.  Loomis  and  Mr.  William  P.  Wolf 
of  this  city,  and  Mr.  S.  P.  Hicks  of  Lowell.  The  board  will 
undoubtedly  find  problems  of  considerable  difficulty  in  put¬ 
ting  the  new  order  of  things  into  practical  operation.  Much 
of  this  difficulty  might  have  been  avoided  if  Rperesentative 
Anderson  had  exhibited  more  enthusiasm  in  gettittg-  his  bill 
properly  drawn  and  carefully  revised.  Upon  the  good  sense 
and  courage  of  the  new  board  depends,  in  no  small  degree, 
the  financial  welfare  and  the  g~ood  reputation  of  the  county 
of  Kent,  and  these  gentlemen  should  receive  the  cordial  sup¬ 
port  of  all  good  citizens  in  their  efforts  to  put  the  county 
business  upon  a  better  basis. 

Preparation  of  Jury  Lists. 

The  Jury  Commission  Bill  was  drafted  by  a  committee 
of  the  local  Bar  Association.  Its  purpose  is  to  secure  a 
better  class  of  jurors  in  the  Superior  and  Circuit  Courts,  and 
to  keep  off  from  the  jury  lists  mere  political  hangers-on  and 
attorneys’  henchmen.  The  commission  will  take  office  Janu¬ 
ary  1,  1904.  The  five  members  are  to  be  appointed  annually 
by  the  Governor  on  the  recommendation  of  the  Superior  and 
Circuit  Court  Judges.  It  is  their  duty  to  make  up  the  jury 
lists  for  the  year,  and  no  person  is  to  be  returned  who  has 
within  one  year  preceding  been  a  member  of  a  jury  panel. 

The  North  Park  Bridge. 

The  North  Park  Bridge  Bill  was  submitted  to  the  electors 
and  approved  by  a  more  than  two-thirds  vote.  Jt  authorized 
the  Board  of  Supervisors  to  construct  a  $30,000.00  bridge 
where  the  Canal  street  gravel  road  crosses  Grand  river.  The 
cost  of  the  bridge  is  to  be  raised  by  taxation  in  three  equal 
annual  installments.  The  City  of  Grand  Rapids  and  the  town¬ 
ships  of  Walker  and  Grand  Rapids  are  required  to  maintain 
the  bridge  after  it  is  once  built. 

The  Probate  Register. 

The  act  in  regard  to  the  Probate  Register  requires  that 
officer  to  be  a  regularly  admitted  attorney  at  law  and  fixes 
bis  salary  at  $1,400.00.  The  salary  was  formerly  $1,000.00. 


8 


II.  CITY  LEGISLATION. 


The  Public  Library. 

•  A  Library  Commission  Bill  was  twice  considered  by  the 
Board  of  Education,  and  both  times  voted  down  by  a  small 
majority.  The  members  who  opposed  the  measure  on  the 
second  vote  were  the  following: 

Trustees  Hendricks  and  Locher  of  the  First  ward: 
Trustee  Innis  of  the  Third  ward; 

Trustee  Plumb  of  the  Fourth  ward; 

Trustees  Leffingwell  and  Reyngold  of  the  Fifth  ward; 
Trustees  Bean  and  Broekstra  of  the  Sixth  ward; 

Trustees  Blickley  and  Albright  of  the  Seventh  ward; 
Trustees  Phillips  and  Gibson  of  the  Eleventh  ward; 
Trustee  Stein  of  the  Twelfth  ward. 

Later  the  measure  was  taken  up  by  the  common  council 
and  unanimously  approved.  The  bill  was  thereupon  drafted 
by  the  City  Attorney,  introduced  into  the  House  and 
promptly  passed.  It  was  then  considerably  delayed  in  the 
Senate,  but  finally  passed  both  houses  in  slightly  modified 
form  and  was  signed  by  the  Governor  in  time  to  be  sub¬ 
mitted  to  the  people  at  the  April  election.  The  voters  ap¬ 
proved  of  the  measure  by  a  nearly  two-thirds  majority. 

The  principal  features  of  the  act  are  as  follows: 

1.  A  commission  of  five  citizens  elected  at  the  school  elec- 

toin  next  September  will  have  charge  of  the  Public 
Library.  Next  year  and  every  year  thereafter  one 
commissioner  will  be  elected  for  a  term  of  five  years. 

2.  Both  men  and  women  may  vote  for  the  commissioners 

and  are  alike  eligible  to  membership  on  the  board. 

3.  Candidates  for  election  are  to  be  nominated  by  petitions 

signed  by  twenty-five  citizens,  and  the  names  of  all 
candidates  are  placed  together  on  the  ballot  without 
any  reference  to  political  or  other  affiliations. 

4.  The  Com,missioners  serve  without  pay  and  no  one  is 

barred  from  membership  by  reason  of  holding  any 
other  office. 

5.  The  Superintendent  of  Schools  acts  as  a  member  of  the 

Commission,  except  that  he  cannot  vote  on  the  ex¬ 
penditure  of  money. 

6.  The  City  Treasurer  will  be  treasurer  of  the  Commission 

and  the  Common  Council  will  pass  upon  the  Commis¬ 
sion’s  estimates  and  make  the  annual  appropriation 
for  library  purposes. 


7.  The  Commission  will  employ,  the  librarian  and  assistants 
and  have  fnll  charge  of  the  library  and  the  library 
building  and  grounds. 

It  is  believed  by  the  friends  of  the  new  measure  that  a 
new  era  of  usefulness  for  the  public  library  will  begin  with 
the  occupancy  of  the  beautiful  and  'commodious  Ryerson 
Library  Building  and  the  transfer  of  the  control  of  the  library 
from  a  frequently  changing  committee  of  the  Board  of  Edu¬ 
cation  to  a  more  permanent  commission  of  representative 
citizens  chosen  by  the  people  at  large.  This  method  of 
nomination  by  petition  without  reference  to  party  meets  the 
approval  of  the  best  informed  students  of  municipal  affairs, 
and,  if  properly  followed  up  by  public-spirited  citizens,  will 
doubtless  lead  the  way  to  a  more  extended  application  of  the 
principle  of  free  nominations. 

The  City’s  Sinking  Fund. 

The  Sinking  Fund  Commission  Bill  was  designed  to  in¬ 
augurate  a  better  financial  policy  for  the  city.  Hitherto 
Grand  Rapids  has  not  been  careful  to  lay  by  a  sufficient  sum 
from  year  to  year  to  pay  its  bonds -when  due.  The .  total 
amount  of  the  sinking  fund  at  the  present  time  is  about 
$190,000,  while  within  two  years  $300,000  of  the  city  bonds 
will  become  due.  No  provision  is  made  for  the  payment  of 
the  water  debt.  The  city  has  issued  $912,000  original 
bonds  for  the  water  works  up  to  this  year,  has  paid  $57,000, 
and  has  re-issued  $325,000.  Furthermore,  $150,000  of  the 
city’s  indebtedness  now  outstanding  represents  money  bor¬ 
rowed  a  few  years  ago  to  meet  a  deficit  in  current  revenues. 
Under  the  new  act  the  council  is  required  to  levy  annually 
for  the  benefit  of  the  sinking  fund  a  tax  of  not  less  than  one- 
fifth  or  more  than  four-fifths  of  a  mill  on  the  dollar  of 
assessed  valuation.  This  means  an  annual  revenue  of  from 
$15,000  to  $60,000  for  the  sinking  fund.  Besides  this  all 
premiums  on  bonds  sold  are  to  be  credited  hereafter  to  this 
fund.  Under  the  new  law  the  care  and  control  of  these 
moneys  will  be  in  the  hands  of  a  commission  of  seven  men, 
as  follows: 

The  Mayor, 

The  City  Clerk, 

The  City  Comptroller, 

The  City  Treasurer, 

The  Chairman  of  the  Ways  and  Means  Committee  of  the 
Council. 


10 


Two  citizens  and  freeholders  chosen  by  the  ex-officio 
members. 

This  commission  is  required  to  invest  the  moneys  of  the 
sinking’  fund  so  as  to  secure  as  great  a  revenue  therefrom  as 
possible,  pending  their  use  in  paving  off  the  city  debt,  but 
in  making  investments  the  commission  must  give  preference 
to  bonds  of  this  city. 

The  Purification  of  the  Water  Supply. 

The  Grand  River  Pollution  Bill  forbids  the  discharge  or 
deposit  of  sewage  and  refuse  in  Grand  River  between  the 
city  and  the  mouth  of  the  Thornapple  river,  or  in  the  tribu¬ 
taries  of  the  Grand  within  twelve  miles  upstream  from  the 
water  works  intake  pipe.  Under  this  act  the  tanneries  and 
other  manufactories  now  polluting  Grand  River  within  the 
limits  .specified  will  have  to  dispose  of  their  sewage  and  refuse 
in  some  other  way  not  later  than  January  ist  next  The 
Soldiers’  Home  is  exempted  from  the  provisions  of  the  act 
until  such  time  as  some  other  satisfactory  means  of  disposing 
of  the  sewage  besides  discharging  it  in  the  river  has  been 
found.  The  Common  Council  is  authorized  to  procure  plans 
for  the  disposition  of  the  sewage  by  means  of  a  septic  tank 
or  otherwise,  and  submit  them  to  the  Soldiers’  Home  Board 
for  approval.  If  these  plans  are  approved  the  city  is  author¬ 
ized  to  go  ahead  and  install  the  new  system.  The  state  is 
pledged  to  pay  half  of  the  expense  up  to  the  amount  of 
$5,000  appropriated  in  this  act. 

The  Big  Ditch  Improvement. 

The  West  Side  Big  Ditch  Bonding  Bill  was  passed  in 
order  to  permit  the  city  to  construct  the  big  sewer  with  the 
necessary  embankment  and  pumping  station  on  the  general 
plan  of  street  improvements.  The  main  provisions  of  the 
bill  are  as  follows: 

1.  The  Common  Council  by  majority  vote  may  authorize 

the  issue  of  $150,000  bonds  payable  in  equal  amounts 
each  year  for  not  to  exceed  eleven  years.  These 
bonds  must  be  paid  when  due  and  cannot  be  refunded. 

2.  The  Council  shall  determine  whether  the  whole  or  any 

part  of  the  cost  is  to  be  raised  by  special  assessment 
on  the  property  benefited  and,  if  so,  what  district  is 
benefited.  A  majority  vote  only  is  required  to  deter¬ 
mine  the  proportion  of  the  expense  to  be  paid  from 
a  special  assessment. 


11 


3.  The  special  assessment  may  be  spread  over  a  period  of 

ten  years. 

4.  The  sewer  and  the  pumping  station  may  be  built  as  one 

improvement,  or  as  two,  in  the  discretion  of  the 
council. 

The  plan  contemplated  by  this  bill  includes  the  abatement 
of  the  Big  Ditch  nuisance  and  the  construction  of  an  embank¬ 
ment  along  the  river  near  the  outlet  of  the  proposed  sewer, 
where  the  river  overflows  during  high  water.  With  a  pump¬ 
ing  station  added,  the  city  will  be  in  a  position  to  shut  the 
sewer-gate  during  high  water  and  pump  the  sewage  into  the 
river  without  having  it  run  back  upon  the  lowlands.  This 
improvement  is  expected  to  redeem  the  swampy  lands  on 
the  West  Side  and  render  them  fit  for  residence  purposes, 
besides  providing  sanitary  drainage  for  a  large  section  of  the 
city. 

The  Boulevard. 

The  Boulevard  Bill  which  was  urged  by  the  Board  of 
Trade  and  has  become  law,  simply  gives  the  Common  Coun¬ 
cil  authority  by  a  two-thirds  vote  to  lav  out  parks  and  boule¬ 
vards  outside  of  the  city  limits,  and  take  land  by  right  of 
eminent  domain  for  the  purpose  of  a  boulevard  extending 
along  or  near  Grand  River  from  the  city  limits  to  the  west 
line  of  Wyoming  township. 

The  Collection  of  Taxes  and  Bssessments. 

The  bills  to  put  the  collection  of  all  taxes  and  assessments 
in  the  hands  of  the  City  Treasurer  were  designed  for  the  con¬ 
venience  of  the  public  in  ascertaining  whether  charges  against 
particular  parcels  of  land  were  all  paid.  Formerly,  if  a  person 
wanted  to  be  sure  that  all  taxes  and  assessments  levied  by  the 
city  had  been  duly  paid,  he  had  to  make  the  rounds  of*several 
offices  in  the  city  hall  inquiring  in  each  office  about  a  particu¬ 
lar  kind  of  tax.  The  city  marshal’s  collections  on  the  side¬ 
walk  and  nuisance  roll  and  the  city  clerk’s  collections  on  de¬ 
linquent  special  assessments  and  redemptions  are  now  trans¬ 
ferred  to  the  treasurer’s  office.  The  only  charges  against 
land  not  received  at  the  city  treasurer’s  office  now  are  water 
rates  and  delinquent  state,  county  and  school  taxes. 

By  one  of  these  bills  the  maximum  schedule  of  salaries 
of  city  officers  was  amended  so  that  the  plumbing  inspector’s 
salary  is  now  under  the  control  of  the  common  council  in¬ 
stead  of  the  Board  of  Health,  and  the  City  Attorney’s  salary 
limit  is  $3,000  instead  of  $2,500. 


12 


The  other  local  bills  passed  by  the  Legislature  at  its  recent 
session,  though  in  some  cases  of  considerable  importance,  are 
well  enough  explained  by  the  titles  given  them  at  the  begin¬ 
ning  of  this  report  so  that  they  do  not  need  to  be  discussed 
liere. 


III.  GENERAL  LEGISLATION  of  LOCAL 
INTEREST. 


The  Judge  of  Probate’s  Salary. 

The  Probate  Judges’  Salary  Schedule  Bill  fixes  the  sal¬ 
aries  of  the  judges  throughout  the  state  in  accordance  with 
the  population  of  the  several  counties.  The  salary  in  coun¬ 
ties  having  more  than  70,000  population,  including  Kent,  is 
fixed  at  $2,800.  It  was  formerly  $2,500.  Counties  governed 
by  special  act  are  exempted  from  the  effects  of  this  law,  and 
elsewhere  the  board  of  supervisors  is  given  authority  to  pay 
the  judge  such  additional  salary  as  it  may  determine  by  ab¬ 
solute  majority  vote.  These  provisions  have  been  practically 
the  same  for  ten  years  back,  and  some  of  them  for  much 
longer,  except  that  the  salaries  are  raised  by  the  new  act. 
This  law  is  of  particular  interest  to  Kent  County  from  the 
fact  that  last  January  the  Board  of  Supervisors  by  a  vote  of 
26  to  14  adopted  a  report  of  the  Committee  on  Finance  rec¬ 
ommending  “that  the  sum  of  $1,000  a  year  be  added  to  the 
salary  of  the  Judge  of  Probate  from  and  after  the  first  day 
■of  January,  1903.” 

Your  Secretary  contended  that  this  action  was  illegal  so 
far  as  it  applied  to  Judge  Jewell’s  salary  during  his  present 
term  of  office.  The  question  involved  was  referred  to  a  num¬ 
ber  of  able  attorneys,  and  their  opinions  differed  as  to  the 
applicability  of  certain  sections  of  the  law  which  laymen  would 
naturally  think  governed  in  this  case.  In  three  places  the 
law  makes  a  plain  declaration  against  the  policy  of  increas¬ 
ing  or  diminishing  salaries  during  terms  of  office. 

Section  20  of  the  Schedule  of  the  Constitution,  adopted 
l)y  the  people  of  the  state  over  fifty  years  ago,  declares  that 
“it  shall  not  be  lawful  hereafter  for  the  legislature  to  increase 
or  diminish  the  compensation  of  any  officer  during  the  term 
for  which  he  is  elected  or  appointed.-” 


13 


Section  2649  of  the  Compiled  Laws  of  1897,  originally 
enacted  in  1879,  declares 

“That  ,  the  annual  salaries  of  all  salaried  county  officers, 
which  are  now  or  may  be  hereafter  by  law  fixed  by  the 
Board  of  Supervisors,  shall  be  fixed  by  said  board  on  or  before 
the  thirty-first  day  of  October  prior  to  the  commencement  of 
the  term  of  such  officer,  and  the  same  shall  not  be  increased 
or  diminished  during  the  term  for  which  such  officers  shall 
have  been  elected  or  appointed.” 

Section  2551  of  the  Compiled  Laws,  which  was  re-enacted 
as  a  part  of  the  new  Probate  Judges’  salary  bill,  declares  that 
salaries  of  Probate  Judges  “shall  neither  be  increased  nor 
diminished  during  the  term  for  which  they  shall  have  been 
elected,  except  as  changed  by  the  increase  or  diminution  of 
population  of  their  respective  counties.” 

These  three  provisions,  enacted  at  widely  different  periods 
of  time,  and  the  last  having  been  at  least  twice  re-enacted, 
seem  to  clearly  establish  the  intention  of  the  law  to  provide 
against  the  change  of  salaries  during  terms  of  office.  The 
Civic  Club  recognized  this  as  sound  public  policy,  which 
ought  to  be  generally  followed  even  if  there  were  no  law 
compelling  it.  Judge  Jewell’s  attorneys  explain  away  section 
20  of  the  Schedule  of  the  Constitution  by  claiming  that  this 
part  of  the  Constitution  is  no  longer  in  force.  They  explain 
away  section  2649  of  the  Compiled  Laws  on  the  ground  that 
technically  the  Probate  Judge  is  not  a  county  officer,  the 
Supreme  Court  having  so  decided.  They  explain  away  the 
provision  of  section  2551  of  the  Compiled  Laws  as  merely 
an  oft-violated  declaration  of  iritention  on  the  part  of  the  leg¬ 
islature  and  in  no  way  affecting  the  Board  of  Supervisors. 
If  the  action  taken  by  the  Board  of  Supervisors  last  January 
was  legal,  then  the  new  law,  when  it  goes  into  effect  Sep¬ 
tember  10,  will  do  one  of  two  things.  Either, 

1.  It  will- fix  the  salary  of  the  Judge  at  $2,800,  leaving  to 

the  Board  of  Supervisors  the  power  under  the  new 
delegation  of  authority  to  increase  it  as  they  see  fit,  or 

2.  It  will  make  the  Judge’s  salary  $3,800,  including  the 

$1,000  voted  by  the  Supervisors. 

It  seems  hardly  probable  that  the  Board  of  Supervisors 
or  the  Legislature  intended  to  give  the  Probate  Judge  a 
salary  $300  higher  than  that  paid  to  the  Circuit  Judges.  The 
interpretation  of  the  law  in  accordance  with  sound  public 
policy  and  amply  supported  by  the  prima  facie  meaning  of 
the  Constitution  and  statutes,  seems  to  be  that  the  Judge’s 
salary  is  now  $2,500  per  year  and  will  remain  at  that  figure 


14 


till  January  i,  1905;  after  that,  under  the  new  law,  it  will  be 
$2,800  plus  such  amount  as  the  supervisors  may  before  that 
time  determine  to  pay  the  office.  This  is  a  question  of  suffi¬ 
cient  importance  to  warrant  testing  in  the  courts. 

Shall  the  State  Constitution  be  Revised  ? 

The  Question  of. the  General  Revision  of  the  Constitution 
will  be  submitted  to  the  people  at  the  November  election 
next  year,  and  if  a  majority  of  all  those  voting  at  the  election 
vote  in  favor  of  revision,  the  next  Legislature  will  have  to 
provide  for  the  calling  of  a  Constitutional  Convention.  This 
question  has  to  be  submitted  to  the  people  every  sixteen  years 
or  oftener.  At  the  last  submission,  in  1898,  revision  was  ap¬ 
proved  by  upwards  of  50,000  majority  of  the  voters  voting 
on  this  question,  but  this  did  not  constitute  a  majority  of  all 
the  voters  at  the  election.  Consequently  nothing  was  done. 

There  has  long  been  a  crying  need  for  revision.  The 
social  and  industrial  conditions  of  the  state  in  1850  were 
primitive  as  compared  with  present  conditions.  In  three 
great  departments  of  constitutional  law  there  is  an  urgent 
demand  for  far-reaching  changes.  These  are: 

1.  The  Control  of  Corporations. 

2.  The  System  of  Taxation. 

3.  The  System  of  Local  and  Municipal  Government. 

Meat  Inspection  and  the  Regulation  of  Slaughter  Houses. 

The  New  Meat  Inspection  Law  authorizes  any  city  or  vil¬ 
lage  in  the  state  to  appoint  a  meat  inspector,  to  regulate 
slaughter  houses  and  meat  markets,  to  license  the  sale  of 
meats  and  to  establish  a  public  abattoir. 1  In  case  a  city  ap¬ 
points  a  meat  inspector,  it  becomes  mandatory  upon  the  City 
Council  to  enact  an  ordinance  along  the  lines  laid  down  in  the 
law,  which  includes  the  following  stringent  provisions  in 
regard  to  slaughter  houses  either  within  or  without  the  city: 

1.  “No  slaughtering  shall  be  done  in  barns,  sheds,  or  other 

buildings  not  designed  and  not  suitable  for  slaughter¬ 
ing  animals  and  for  the  handling,  dressing  and  cooling 
of  meats;  nor  shall  any  slaughtering  be  done  outside 
of  a  building. 

2.  “All  slaughter  houses  .shall  have  an  abundant  supply 


15 


of  water  from  a  well  or  other  source  which  is  not 
contaminated  from  the  slaughter  house  or  surround¬ 
ing  pens  or  enclosures,  or  any  part  of  the  premises: 
and  which  may  be  applied  with  adequate  pressure 
through  a  hose  to  any  part  of  the  room  or  rooms  used 
for  the  purpose  of  slaughtering  or  preparing  meats 
for  consumption  as  human  food. 

3.  “All  slaughter  houses  shall  have  suitable  floors  and  sub¬ 

drainage  with  proper  sewer  connections,  which  floors 
shall  be  thoroughly  washed  off  each  day  after  the 
slaughtering  is  completed. 

4.  “The  walls  and  all  exposed  surfaces  on  the  inside  of 

slaughter  houses  shall  be  cleansed  by  washing  or 
scraping  as  often  as  once  in  each  month,  and  if  the 
surfaces  are  not  painted  they  shall  be  calcimined  or 
whitewashed  at  least  once  a  month. 

5.  “Cooling  and  store  rooms  for  meat  shall  be  properly 

ventilated. 

6.  “All  offal  and  refuse  shall  be  removed  from  the  slaughter 

house  on  the  day  of  slaughtering,  and  disposed  of  in 
a  decent  and  sanitary  manner. 

7.  “All  animals  kept  in  yards  attached  to  slaughter  houses 

shall  be  treated  in  a  humane  manner,  and,  if  kept 
there  over  twelve  hours,  shall  be  fed  and  watered. 

8.  “All  pens  or  enclosures  connected  with  any  slaughter 

house  shall  be  kept  in  a  proper  sanitary  condition.” 

The  condition  of  slaughter  houses  in  the  vicinity  of  Grand 
Rapids  is  such  that  the  city  ought  to  take  immediate  ad¬ 
vantage  of  the  provisions  of  this  bill. 

This  completes  the  discussion  of  new  laws  of  particular 
interest  to  this  locality.  It  must  be  noted  with  regret  that 
the  books  written  by  the  Michigan  Legislature  are  not  usu¬ 
ally  English  classics.  The  chapters  are  of  so  diverse  origin 
and  are  rushed  into  print  with  so  little  revision  and  editing, 
that  many  grammatical  errors  and  many  cloudy  passages  may 
be  found.  The  members  of  the  legislature  are  not  altogether 
to  blame  for  this.  Comparatively  few  measures  originate  in 
the  Legislature  itself.  The  fault  lies  partly  with  the  Common 
Council  and  private  citizens  interested  in  legislation.  They 
generally  put  off  the  preparation  of  bills  which  they  desire 
passed  until  haste  and  inadequate  consideration  are  neces¬ 
sary. 


16 


Nevertheless,  this  city  and  county  are,  on  the  whole,  to 
be  congratulated  on  the  good  purposes  of  the  year’s  legis¬ 
lation. 


IV,  MEASURES  THAT  FAILED  TO 

PASS. 


The  Sheriffs  Salary  Bill. 

A  few  important  measures  fell  by  the  wayside,  and  it  is 
perhaps  fitting  to  pause  a  little  to  discuss  them  and  impar¬ 
tially  distribute  the  honors  attaching  to  their  defeat,  “lest 
we  forget.”  It  is  safe  to  say  that  no  local  measure  was  more 
carefully  drawn  or  better  calculated  to  stop  crying  abuses  in 
local  affairs  than  the  sheriff’s  salary  bill.  Representative  J. 
H.  Anderson  deliberately  and  persistently  blocked  this  bill. 
He  was  fully  supported  in  his  oposition  by  Senator  David  E. 
Burns  and  Representative  J.  H.  Van  Zoeren. 

Some  of  the  abuses  in  the  sheriff’s  office  were  pointed 
out  in  my  report  to  you  last  April.  This  report  was  widely 
circulated  and  confirmed  the  opinion  already  quite  generally 
held  that  the  fee  system  is  working  to  the  disgrace  and 
great  financial  loss  of  the  county  and  the  dishonor  of  the  offi¬ 
cials  in  the  sheriff’s  office.  The  salary  bill  as  finally  agreed 
upon  by  its  friends  contained  the  following  main  provisions: 

1.  A  salary  of  $4,000  for  the  sheriff  and  $1,500  for  the 

under  sheriff. 

2.  The  number  of  deputy  sheriffs  and  their  salaries  to  be 

fixed  by  the  Board  of  County  Auditors,  the  number 
to  be  sufficient  and  their  salaries  not  to  exceed  $1,000 
each. 

3.  Additional  deputies  to  be  appointed  in  case  of  necessity 

upon  order  of  the  circuit  court. 

4.  All  fees  of  whatever  nature,  both  civil  and  criminal,  to 


17 


be  turned  into  the  county  treasury  monthly  with  a 
detailed  statement  under  oath. 

5-  Actual  and  necessary  expenses  to  be  reported  monthly 
for  auditing  by  the  Board  of  Auditors. 

6.  Books  of  account,  open  to  public  inspection,  to  show  in 

detail  the  cost  of  maintaining  the  jail  and  the  pris¬ 
oners  therein  for  each  quarter  year. 

7.  To  be  optional  with  the  supervisors  to  make  a  con¬ 

tract  with  the  sheriff  or  his  deputy  for  the  board  of 
prisoners,-  but  in  that  case  the  books  to  be  kept  as 
above  provided,  and  all  profit  on  prisoners  other 
than  county  charges  to  be  turned  into  the  county 
treasury  as  fees.  If  no  contract  is  made  the  county 
to  pay  the  actual  expense  of  maintaining  the  pris¬ 
oners. 

The  opposition  to  the  sheriffs  salary  bill  was  of  two  kinds, 
theoretical  and  political.  The  theoretical  opposition  was 
based  on  the  assumption  that  under  the  salary  system  the 
sheriff’s  force  would  be  made  large  enough  so  that  no  saving 
to  the  county  would  be  effected,  and  lazy  enough  so  that 
the  necessary  official  service  would  not  be  performed.  This 
argument  gained  some  plausibility  from  the  example  of  other 
*  county  offices  which  have  failed  to  be  self-sustaining  under 
the  salary  system.  It  is  all  too  true  that  the  traditions  of 
office-holding  in  the  county  building  are  generally  in  line 
with  the  idea  of  feeding  at  the  public  crib,  rather  than  of 
making  a  record  for  honorable  and  efficient  service,  and 
doubtless  while  public  sentiment  permits  these  traditions  to 
prevail,  no  mere  system  will  stop  the  tapping  of  the  public 
treasury  for  personal  benefit.  But  the  salary  system,  when 
coupled  with  an  adequate  system  of  auditing,  such  as  ob¬ 
tains  in  the  Federal  service,  has  proven  itself  a  money-saver 
and  has  stopped  certain  outrageous  abuses  that  naturally 
arise  under  the  fee  system.  The  board  of  auditors  bill  and 
the  sheriff’s  salary  bill  ought  to  have  been  passed  together 
as  each  would  have  strengthened  the  other  in  practical  opera¬ 
tion.  Greed  and  courage  clo  not  naturally  go  together. 


18 


Undoubtedly  the  fee  systefn  encourages  greed,  and  that  does 
not  tend  to  improve  the  service  in  an  office  whose  duties  are 
like  the  sheriff’s  or  the  coroner’s. 

The  political  opposition  to  the  sheriff’s  salary  bill  was 
frankly  explained  by  Senator  Burns,  if  the  newspaper  reports 
are  correct.  He  is  reported  to  have  said  that  the  party  de¬ 
pended  on  the  sheriff  to  pay  the  expenses  of  the  campaign. 
In  other  words  the  political  organization  more  or  less  de¬ 
liberately  calculates  on  getting  enough  revenue  indirectly 
cut  of  the  public  treasury  to  pay  campaign  expenses.  It  is 
also  believed  that  the  opposition  of  Albert  Carroll  and  other 
prospective  candidates  for  sheriff,  based  on  the  desire  to 
bleed  the  county  for  their  own  benefit  during  the  next  term 
or  two  of  the  sheriff’s  office,  was  largely  responsible  for  the 
defeat  of  the  bill.  A  $4,000  salary  was  not  enough  for  these. 
It  was  significant  that  some  men  with  good  reputations 
were  found  who  felt  bound  by  personal  friendship  for  candi- 
.  dates  not  to  encourage  a  movement  for  a  change  in  the  law 
beginning  nearly  two  years  ahead.  Think  of  it!  The  laws 
of  the  state  of  Michigan  must  be  made  with  an  eye  to  suit 
the  hopes  of  men  who  are  going  to  run  for  office  at  some 
future  time.  The  public  interest  and  the  welfare  of  the  tax¬ 
payers  must  stand  aside  till  the  financial  hbpes  of  candidates 
have  been  realized.  Would  it  not  have  been  wise  to  pass 
the  salary  bill  with  a  provision  that  it  should  take  effect  Six 
months  after  the  demise  of  all  candidates  now  living?  If  the 
people  are  not  on  the  alert  it  will  be  easy  for  the  sheriff,  who 
under  the  fee  system  has  many  thousands  of  dollars  at  stake 
in  the  auditing  of  his  claims*,  to  pay  the  campaign  expenses  of 
the  candidates  for  county  auditors  and  hitch  them  to  his 
political  wagon.  Hon.  Jeremiah  Anderson  should  be  long 
remembered  as  the  man  who  put  the  board  of  auditors 
bill  through  with  scant  consideration  and  killed  the  sheriff’s 
salary  bill  in  spite  of  popular  demand  for  its  enactment.  It 
should  be  stated  that  Representative  Vandercook  did  all 
in  his  power  to  pass  the  salary  bill  and  deserves  the  thanks 
of  the  community  for  it. 


19 


The  Proposed  Charter  Commission. 


The  Charter  Commission  Bill  was  one  of  the  most  impor¬ 
tant  local  measures  considered  by  the  legislature.  It  was 
passed  by  both  houses,  though  in  slightly  different  form,  and 
then  let  die  in  conference  committee.  The  Common  Council, 
the  Trades  and  Labor  Council,  and  the  Civic  Club  all  en¬ 
dorsed  the  measure,  and  it  was  actively  supported  by  the 
Grand  Rapids  Herald  in  its  editorial  columns.  Senator  Burns 
and  Representatives  Anderson  and  Van  Zoeren  announced 
their  opposition  to  the  bill  at  the  beginning,  but  apparently 
became  reconciled  to  its  passage  later.  The  bill  provided 
that  the  mayor  should  appoint  a  commission  of  twenty-five 
citizens  representing  the  various  business  and  industrial  in¬ 
terests  of  the  city  to  make  a  careful  study  of  the  needs  of 
this  city  and  the  experience  of  other  cities,  and  draft  a  new 
charter  for  Grand  Rapids,  to  be  submitted  to  the  people  for 
adoption,  and,  if  approved  by  them,  to  be  sent  to  the  next 
Legislature  for  enactment  into  law.  The  Mayor’s  appoint¬ 
ments  were  to  be  confirmed  by  the  council,  and  the  commis¬ 
sion  was  authorized  to  employ  a  secretary  and  incur  the 
necessary  expense  in  doing  its  work.  It  was  afterwards 
agreed  to  limit  the  expense  to  $3,000.  The  whole  trouble,  so 
far  as  known,  came  over  the  question  as  to  whether  the 
Mayor  should  be  a  member,  ex-officio,  or  not.  Mr.  Vander- 
cook  thought  not,  and  was  at  first  emphatically  supported 
in  that  position  by  Mr.  Anderson  and  Mr.  Burns.  But  Mr. 
Palmer  did  not  take  kindly  to  having  the  Mayor’s  name 
stricken  off  after  once  being  in  the  bill,  and  used  his  influ¬ 
ence  to  secure  its  reinstatement.  Mr.  Vandercook  insisted 
that  the  Mayor  should  not  be  on,  and  the  Mayor  insisted  that 
he  should  not  be  put  off.  Senator  Burns  supported  the 
Mayor’s  position  for  political  reasons  and  the  bill  died.  It 
seems  hardly  worth  while  to  discuss  the  merits  of  this  contro¬ 
versy.  Certainly  the  Mayor,  through  his  appointment  of  the 
Commissioners,  and  his  official  position,  could  have  had  suffi¬ 
cient  influence  over  the  formation  of  the  new  charter  with¬ 
out  himself  being  a  member  of  the  Commission,  and  doubt- 


20 


less  he  would  have  gained  strength  with  the  public  if  he  had 
yielded  without  ado  to  the  judgment  of  the  legislators.  Yet 
the  point  at  issue  was  too  small  to  justify  the  defeat  of  the 
bill 

Happily,  the  Common  Council  can  itself  establish  the 
Commission  and  submit  the  new  charter  to  the  people,  trust¬ 
ing  to  the  good  sense  of  the  next  Legislature  to  enact  any 
charter  bill  that  has  been  carefully  drawn  and  has  received 
the  approval  of  the  voters.  It  is  to  be  hoped  that  the  contro¬ 
versy  here  described  has  not  stirred  up  enough  bad  blood  to 
destroy  the  usefulness  of  any  commission  established  under 
the  present  administration.  A  new  charter  is  needed  and  it 
cannot  be  prepared  without  long  and  careful  study.  Steps 
should  be  taken  in  the  early  fall  to  get  this  movement  on  its 
feet  again. 


The  Merit  System  for  the  City. 

The  Municipal  Civl  Service  Bill  was  prepared  in  accord¬ 
ance  with  the  recommendations  of  the  National  Municipal 
League,  but  was  not  urged  for  passage  on  account  of  the 
hope  that  a  charter  commission  would  be  established  to  take 
up  this  along  with  other  important  matters.  The  Detroit 
civil  service  bill  also  failed,  though  it  was  put  through  the 
house  toward  the  close  of  the  session. 

Publicity  of  Accounts. 

Another  bill,  perhaps  of  even  greater  importance  than  the 
civil  service  bills,  was  introduced  at  our  request  by  Repre¬ 
sentative  Vandercook,  but  not  urged  for  passage  on  account 
of  the  feeling  that  the  time  was  not  yet  ripe  for  getting  it  con¬ 
sidered.  This  bill  made  stringent  provisions  under  severe 
penalties  for  detailed  financial  reports  to  the  city  authori¬ 
ties  and  the  auditor  general  of  the  state  from  all  persons  or 
corporations  engaged  in  the  supply  of  local  utilities  under 
street  franchises  granted  by  public  authority.  This  meas¬ 
ure  is  in  line  with  the  Ohio  act  passed  last  year,  and  would 


21 


inaugurate  a  rule  of  the  utmost  importance  to  the  public  in 
the  solution  of  the  franchise  question.  Publicity  of  accounts 
may  make  municipal  control  sufficiently  sure  to  render  muni¬ 
cipal  ownership  of  public  utilities  unnecessary  in  the  long  run, 
but  without  such  publicity  municipal  ownership  will  surely 
come  in  cities  whose  people  are  virile  enough  to  take  charge 
of  their  civic  destiny. 

Municipal  Home  Rule. 

Finally,  all  home  rule  measures  failed.  The  Legislature 
scarcely  considered  them.  The  present  methods  of  local 
legislation  are  well-nigh  intolerable.  Local  bills  are  passed 
irresponsibly,  consuming  the  time  of  the  Legislature  with¬ 
out  getting  any  adequate  consideration  at  its  hands.  A 
larger  measure  of  municipal  home  rule,  so  that  most  local 
legislation  can  be  taken  care  of  by  the  cities  themselves 
where  public  sentiment  can  have  free  play  and  responsibility 
be  fixed,  is  necessary  for  the  welfare  and  continued  develop¬ 
ment  of  Michigan  cities.  Home  rule,  it  is  hoped,  will  be 
agitated  enough  so  that  if  we  have  a  general  revision  of  the 
state  constitution,  that  instrument  will  in  the  future  contain 
ample  guaranties  of  local  self-government. 

Respectfully  submitted, 

DELOS  F.  WILCOX,  Secretary. 


